Giving people jobs based on race or gender is bad for society, health and the economy, Harvard study shows

Monday, January 25, 2016 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
Tags: affirmitive action, heart health, Harvard study

---

(NaturalNews) The harder we try to promote diversity in the workplace, the more controlling the situation becomes, exacerbating the discrimination we were trying to eradicate in the first place. A new study finds that, when pro-diversity programs are implemented in the workforce, white men are threatened the most, while no benefit is provided to minorities or women, because the group that feels threatened will naturally bind together to keep control.

"Groups that typically occupy positions of power may feel alienated and vulnerable when their company claims to value diversity," said the study's authors.

"This may be one explanation for the lackluster success of most diversity management attempts: when people feel threatened, they may resist efforts to make the workplace more inclusive."

Forcing diversity in the workforce actually causes increased discrimination

On the surface, it seems noble to try and make women equal to men in all aspects, but biologically men and women are inherently different, in anatomy and hormonal structure. When women are hired out of obligation to artificially create diversity in the workforce, men are threatened and a natural resistance occurs. When the focus of hiring becomes dependent on diversifying the workforce, the minorities actually become favored, increasing the force of discrimination. These diversity programs don't create equality as intended; they create further polarizing conditions, prompting white men to bind together, resist and defend their positions that they perceived themselves as having earned through hard work, regardless of skin tone.

These programs may also cause employees to walk on eggshells in their company as they try to include everyone. Since they are forced to include everyone based on their race or their gender, who they hire and how they give out raises for work production changes. Afraid they might offend a minority or a woman, the white man is actually suppressed in how he does his job, how he manages and makes decisions. He may feel obligated to cater to a woman instead of treating her the same as a man would be treated.

Pro-diversity programs function as weapons of intimidation that can be used by minorities and women who are practically encouraged to feel discriminated, even when they are more catered to. The blame is always thrust on the white man in instances that seem unfair because the woman or minority is conditioned to feel this way in these pro-diversity work environments. In these all-inclusive environments, women or minorities may victimize themselves and vindicate themselves by pointing at the white man and calling out that they've been discriminated against.

In the end, pro-diversity programs in the workforce are more divisive than anything, not helping women or minorities get ahead honestly and fairly. The Harvard Business Review found out that the programs only protect companies against discrimination claims when minorities or women cry out that they've been discriminated against.

"Currently, diversity initiatives' strongest accomplishment may actually be protecting the organization from litigation — not protecting the interests of underrepresented groups," write the study's co-authors, Cheryl Kaiser, Tessa Dover and Brenda Major.

The study also found that "diversity initiatives also seem to do little to convince minorities that companies will treat them more fairly."

Pro-diversity programs send the message to white male employees "that they might be undervalued and discriminated against," the study found.

"We found evidence that it not only makes white men believe that women and minorities are being treated fairly — whether that's true or not — it also makes them more likely to believe that they themselves are being treated unfairly."

Larger companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are currently being pressured to balance the ratio of white men to minorities and women. Kaiser, Dover and Major found out that the pro-diversity push is creating more problems among workers than it solves.

"Compared to white men interviewing at the company that did not mention diversity, white men interviewing for the pro-diversity company expected more unfair treatment and discrimination against whites," they reported.

"They also performed more poorly in the job interview, as judged by independent raters. And their cardiovascular responses during the interview revealed that they were more stressed."

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

HBR.org